08-13-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

vl COLLIS V. cm- OF BLOOMINGTON Mi""- 19 .he ..,pe of paroi evidence p.ainuff a^u. inco,l.«d ,n. un^ ^o ----------- to Lhe inal court. unconstitutional taking of prop erty without just compensation. M.S.A. § 462.358; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5; M.S. A.Constl974. art 1. § 13. sort teU ‘ sought to submit to Lhe trial court Affirmed 2. Municipal Corporations *=»43 , Within meaning of statute authoncing j municipalities to require, as condition aor ^ subdivision approval, dedication of reasona- , 4 ble portion of subdivision property for George C. COLLIS, et al.. PP« narks and playgrounds or pajTnent of fees V. to be used therefor, term "reasonable por- CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. ReapondenL — No. 45523. Supreme Court of .Minnesou. Aug. 13. 1976^ Subdividers brought action against city Challensing fecial constiw.ionality of sut- uw au.horiiing mumcipaiilies to requir dedication of land for parks and p.ay- groor.ds or payment of fees to be used therefor as condition for subd.v.s.on ap- proval, and city ordinance tion" would be construea lo mean tion of land which evidence reasonably cs- Ublishes municipality will need to acquire / for purposes staled as result of approval of / subdivision. M.S.A. § 462.358. 3. Constitutional Law «=»63(2) Municipal Corporations *»43 Statute authorizing municipalities to require, as condition for subdivision approv al. dedication of reasonable portion of su^ division property for parks and playgroun s or contribution of equivalent amount in cast! to be collected inU) fund to be usedIsSlil fisssj and ordinance, and plaintiffs iherefore. did not constitute an unconstitu- The Supreme Court. Kelly, u.. held that of powers to municipali- sutute authorising municipalities to reqmre ^ dedication of land or payment of tees was not on its face, an unconstitutional taking ^ Eminent Domain •=2(1) of Vrocertv without just compensation: city ordinance providing that, aa gen- It such sutute waa not an unconatitu- .,t i, reasonable to require « tional delegation of powers to municipali- jonjiiion for subdivision approval. dedi«- ties- and that city ordinance implementing io% of subdivision pro^ y or such statute was within sco|« »f enabling p,,,, p,.>.gr„unds •r^contnbutmn^^_^such siaiuie .......... legislation, and was not, on its face, a Uk- ing of property without just compensation. Affirmed. Equivalent amount in cash, was w.thm scope of enabling legislation, and was not, on its face, a Uking of just compensation. M.S.A. § 46^3o8. U. . C.A.Const. Amend. 5; M.S.A.Const.l9 , 1. Eminent Domain «=* 2(1) art. 1, § 13. Statute authorizing municipalities to k, i^jpal Corporations «=»43 require, as condition for ’ u„dcr city ordinance providing that »t- .1. dedicotioh of a "^‘r" ‘Z7 oloy. is reJon“bL u, require, os condition for ;^“n^rTn:LGo„‘’"^,l.^ent subdivision approve,. dedicaUon of ‘an